jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
He claims to be a soldier of Allah, and while I do not class all Muslims as terrorists, or all terrorists as Muslims, while are they even bothering with a trial? And why call it a work place shooting?
He claims he is a soldier of Allah, he committed his crimes in a US Army uniform, therefore by his own words he was an enemy combatant in an American uniform, he should have been shot on site.
What you're saying is that he should have been shot down like a dog as an alternative to due legal process. I don't doubt he deserves to die, and from what I see this case ought to be pretty straightforward, but the real issue is do we want to live in a society where 'bad' people are arbitratily gunned down? Due process is there for a reason, and while it annoys blood-thirsty Radicals and hate-mongers to have to prove their case, that makes the need for a fair trial far, far more critical than the facts in evidence suggest. Stand Your Ground is bad enough; do we really want to descend into a lynch mob society?
By his own statement, he violated the Geneva Convention, he claims to be an enemy combatant and fired on troops in a uniform that he had no allegiance to.
I suggest you look into the German tactics during the battle of the bulge. Enemy combatants found wearing friendly uniforms are not due the protection of the Geneva convention.
His statement makes it clear he did not consider himself an American soldier, but the soldier of another army, so he was an enemy combatant in a friendly uniform. Clear, concise and by his own words. Under the Geneva Conventions he is not due a trial, or anything other than a firing squad.
Here it is in OFFICIAL Military documentation.
quote:
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1976) states: “It is especially forbidden to make improper use … of the national flag, or military insignia and uniform of the enemy.”
The manual adds:
In practice, it has been authorized to make use of national flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse. The foregoing rule (HR, art. 23, par. (f)) does not prohibit such employment, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden. [emphasis in original]
The manual also states:
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) incorporates the content of Article 23(f) of the 1907 Hague Regulations and adds that the prohibited improper use of the enemy’s flags, military insignia, national markings and uniforms “involves use in actual attacks”.
The manual further specifies:
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces. Ground forces engaged in actual combat, in contrast to ground forces preparing for combat, are required to wear their own uniform or distinctive national insignia.
…
While combatant airmen are not absolutely required to wear a uniform or distinctive national insignia while flying in combat, improper use of the military insignia or uniform of the enemy is forbidden. Consequently, airmen should not wear the uniform or national insignia of the enemy while engaging in combat operations. Military aircraft, as entities of combat in aerial warfare, are also required to be marked with appropriate signs of their nationality and military character
< Message edited by jlf1961 -- 8/3/2013 5:51:56 PM >
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
Fort Hood and the rarity of military executions - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread